"Work With Capitalism, Not Against It". Why the Labor Leadership Surrenders to the Bosses

Heroic 1985-86 P 9 Struggle defeated by a combination of the bosses and the UFCW and AFL-CIO leadership

We would like to thank the many people and organizations that have read and shared the statement on our blog, The DSA, LaborNotes and the Trade Unions. This statement has been among the most widely read and shared of the many articles and statements on this Blog. In the course of the exchange of views both around this recent article and also in the past, it has been expressed by some people, mainly members from left organizations, that the authors of this article have a "principle of attacking the trade union leadership.". This is not the case. There are different approaches as to how trade union work should be carried out and the authors of this article believe that none of these approaches should be off limits when it comes to discussion.

This especially applies to the policies of the union leadership that control the trade union movement with its 14 million members. Having said this it may be the case that some activists, while agreeing with the article's position that the union leaders will not fight, may wish for some more information. To this end we would like to call a witness to support our case.  

Our witness is the main public voice of US capitalism - the Wall Street Journal. In other words, testimony from the horse's mouth. As the last century drew to a close, the Wall Street Journal produced a centennial edition. This included a segment titled - "Events that Helped Shape the Country". It explained that in 1893 there was an economic slump that left half the membership of what was then the main union federation, the American Federation of Labor (AFL), unemployed. The AFL was composed overwhelmingly of craft unions (skilled trades).  Samuel Gompers was the leader of that federation. Under his leadership, and against the background of that economic slump, the AFL made a decision as to what its general policy should be towards U.S. capitalism.

Here is how the Wall Street Journal reported this decision. "The AFL led by Samuel Gompers votes against adopting socialist reform programs....Gompers believes that U.S. labor should work with capitalism, not against it, and that the AFL’s  proper concerns are wages and hours and better working conditions".

 

Take note, this is the statement from the main public voice of US capitalism, of the employers, as it looked back over the previous century at what were the "events that helped shape the country". This is no small deal. This public voice of US capitalism saw that the decision of the trade union leaders over 100 years ago, "helped shape the country", that is, the United States we all live in today.  The bosses, the employers, U.S. capitalism, speaking here through their most important public journal, recognize the importance of the decision taken by the trade union leaders of the time to "work with capitalism, not against it".

This decision by the AFL leaders helped shape the role US capitalism, US imperialism, would play in the coming century and up to this day. And the role it would play not only in the U.S. but also internationally. With no serious threat to its system at home from the leadership of the existing trade union federation, U.S. capitalism was allowed to stride out onto the world and put its stamp on the new century. This policy of the AFL also allowed and still allows US corporations, that is US capitalism, to dominate the ideas of its working class and the society in which its working class lives more than is the case in any other advanced capitalist country.  

Any force within today’s US labor movement that does not recognize the importance of this decision by the leadership of the trade unions at that time and recognize that this continues to be the policy of the union leadership today------and refuses to openly discuss this reality------will not be able to offer an alternative to the union membership and to the working class that can defeat the present offensive of the employers, the offensive of the capitalist class, and offer a way to a secure future for working class people.    

So the policy to “work with capitalism, not against it” remains the policy of the leaders of the U.S trade unions to this day. This policy was not changed with the rise of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) in the 1930's and the merging of the AFL and the CIO into the AFL-CIO in the 1950’s. Only by recognizing this, is it possible to understand why the program and strategy of the trade union leaders is one of capitulation and surrender. It is why they oppose and seek to crush or co-opt any movement from within their ranks that seeks to oppose the policies of capitalism.  In this period, such a movement would mean opposing the present offensive of capitalism against the working class and against the environment. The trade union leadership of today does and will continue to move to crush any movement from within their ranks and the working class as a whole that threatens their policy of labor peace with the bosses, of "working with capitalism, not against it".

When your opponent is at war and on the offensive against you, and the leadership on your side is only prepared to seek peace then it is not hard to see which side is going to win. This is why the US working class has been driven back over the past decades. A classic example of this class collaboration is the recent strike in Western Washington State involving crane operators and other construction workers. We urge the reader to read this report of the strike and be sure to read the union leadership's rules about picket line behavior. It is proof positive that they have no intention of hurting the economic interests of our enemies.

Look at events in the US as the 1980's unfolded. U.S capitalism/imperialism was increasingly unable to pay for its huge military and political presence on the world stage and keep the US working class at the standard of living it had achieved in the post World War 2 decades. Faced with this situation, and increasingly going into debt, U.S capitalism moved on to the offensive against its own working class to reduce its living standards. This offensive was launched by U.S. capitalism in 1980 through its representative in the White House at the time - Ronald Reagan.  The 11,000 air traffic controllers organized in the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) went on strike for better wages, conditions and shorter hours. Reagan, on behalf of the employers and U.S. capitalism, fired all 11,000 air traffic controllers and banned them from working in the industry for life. This came not long after the Democrat Carter had used the anti union Taft-Hartley Act against the miners in 1978.

The gauntlet was thrown down to the U.S. working class. Once again we turn to the Wall Street Journal - the horses' mouth - to see the importance of what was going on. 

It wrote at the time: ”The PATCO strike has to be defeated for all sorts of reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with relations between the federal aviation administration and PATCO. The defeat of PATCO is related to the more important issues, commitments to rebuild military strength, to restore the dollar to soundness, to cut taxes and regulations, to resist soviet imperialism and to curb the wild ascent of federal spending.” This was making it clear that the crushing of PATCO was necessary so U.S. capitalism could move to reassert its dominance at home and on the world stage. Smashing PATCO was an opening salvo making it clear U.S. capitalism had to move decisively against its own working class. 

As John Throne, one of the writers for this Blog writes in his Manifesto and Memoirs, “this was no beating about the bush. After the defeat in Vietnam, after the economic crisis of the 1970’s and with the rising U.S debt, U.S imperialism was moving to rebuild its economic and military strength at home and internationally. it was moving decisively to get back in the saddle.  The reader can purchase this book here.

Back again to the policies and role of the trade union leaders, the leadership of the AFL-CIO and non-affiliated unions. What did this leadership do when capitalism with the firing of all PATCO members threw down the gauntlet to the U.S. trade union movement and working class? Did they pick up this gauntlet?  Did they explain what was going on to the membership and reach out to explain this to the working class both organized and unorganized?  Were meetings organized in every local, and in workplaces to explain what was going on? Did this leadership respond to this assault on organized labor by organizing strikes in transport, communication and other industries where the unions were then strong?  Did the leadership respond with a call to mobilize and prepare for a General Strike to support PATCO and halt the offensive of the employers and U.S. capitalism before it even got started. It did not. 

Instead it instructed its membership to cross the PATCO picket lines and deliberately allowed the PATCO strike to go down to defeat. As a result, the employers offensive took off. This surrender, this refusal of the AFL-CIO leadership to back PATCO flowed from their policy of  "working with capitalism, not against it". This surrender gave the green light to the bosses who then felt confident their offensive against organized labor could proceed and without opposition from the national federation, the AFL-CIO. Numerous heroic attempts by individual unions throughout the eighties were isolated, were cut off from the rest of the movement and working class in general by the trade union leadership and as a result were defeated. Organized labor and the U.S. working class has been on a downward spiral of falling wages and worsening conditions ever since. 

This is the reality. This is what has to be explained and understood. It is the refusal to explain this and to build against this an organized offensive opposition in the working class that this blog is addressing when we write articles such as our recent one about DSA, Labor Notes and the trade unions. 

We wish to seek to point out that in our opinion it is a mistake for the sisters and brothers in organizations such as DSA and Labor Notes not to openly explain the reason the trade union leaders play the role they do. That is because they have the same world-view as the bosses. They have chosen a policy of "working with capitalism, not against it".  They see no alternative to capitalism. They do not believe that the working class can build a different society. And of course there is also the well paid and secure jobs and many perks these leaders have in their positions in the leadership of the trade unions.  

Labor Notes has been successful at regularly bringing together a lot of rank and file union activists to share their experiences. For this they deserve credit. However they do so within a limited context. That is without explaining the root cause of the policies of the trade union leadership.  Look at what could be possible. Every Labor Notes conference could open with a session that would explain and discuss the policies of the AFL-CIO leadership which are to "work with capitalism, not against it". It could be explained that this policy is called the Team Concept, the view that bosses and workers have the same economic interests and it is this worldview that explains the determination of the trade union leadership not to confront the present offensive of the employers, of U.S. capitalism, against the working class and the environment. 

All discussion about DSA’s trade union work should include this issue of the Team Concept, of their being two alternatives, of working with or against capitalism and how the present leadership of organized labor is firmly committed to the former. Those of us in DSA and DSA’s leadership in particular, should seek to convince the organizers of Labor Notes and the many activists who attend events organized by Labor Notes and the many members that are now joining DSA that it is necessary for the trade union movement to break from the present policy of its leadership if a new aggressive, offensive working class movement is to be organized.

The teachers and educators strikes and how they organized them, show that a new movement is taking shape. The teachers/educators movement and the gains they have made were successful through actions that were taken against the policies and wishes of the trade union leadership as a whole. It is the responsibility of experienced activists in such groups as Labor Notes and members of such socialist groups as DSA to explain that these policies of the AFL-CIO leadership of supporting capitalism lie at the root of their refusal to fight and why any major victories are so frightening to them. Major victories would empower union members and all workers and the movement would spread across the working class and show that the leadership’s policy of surrender to the bosses’ offensive was and is incorrect and that there exists an alternative. It would also threaten the control of this leadership over the trade union movement and apparatus and threaten their own positions.    

DSA rank and file trade unionists and all forces in US society that want to fight and defeat the capitalist offensive against the working class and the environment, have to have an understanding of history and the role of the trade union leadership in that history and its role to the present day. Many of the leaders of Labor Notes know this history but have adopted policies of seeking a relationship with the less right wing of the trade union leadership and full time apparatus. So to avoid conflict with these forces they do not explain this history. This is a mistake. 

Also, there are people who enter the labor movement from academia, many from a left, liberal academic background, even socialist background, and most with the best intentions of helping the labor movement.  But many of these bring with them a lack of confidence in the working class, an incorrect tendency to cooperate with the least right wing sections of the labor leadership and full time apparatus by keeping discussion of the real issues off the table. And as part of this keep quiet about the real role of the union leadership and the real reason it plays the role it does. This leads to these people holding back the activist and working class movement from drawing the full conclusions as to what is necessary to build the kind of working class offensive that is necessary in this period.

Part of what flows from this mistaken approach is that these forces give the labor leadership, especially the more liberal wing of the labor leadership, a credibility that they do not deserve. When this issue is raised, in most cases these forces defend, or at the least give cover to, this wing of the trade union leadership and full time apparatus. The working class and the trade union membership should welcome allies including those from academia who place their skills at the service of the working class. Many heroic fighters have come from this background. The working class should welcome and accept the assistance these people can give. But these people must see that their experience, like all experiences, has positive and negative features.

Those coming from an academic background tend to be overconfident and have a tendency to think it is their job to teach the working class. This is one of the negative tendencies that tends to develop in university backgrounds. It is important to recognize as Marx pointed out that the task of liberating the working class is the task of the working class itself. People from such backgrounds have to see that they have much to learn from the working class and especially the working class activists.  

One final note on the role of the various left groups from a left-sectarian background. One of the most important attempts of the U.S. working class to take on the employer’s offensive of the past decades was the UFCW P9 strike in Minnesota in the mid 1980's. This was a heroic struggle by these workers that was defeated when the national UFCW leadership moved in and replaced the P9 leadership who would not give in to the employer’s demands with a compliant leadership that would follow orders and the AFL-CIO’s policy of surrender.

Out of this struggle came an attempt to build a national rank and file movement against the policies of the union leaders that called for surrender. It was known as the "The National Rank And File Against Concessions". 

This body held a conference. It had the potential to begin the building of a serious opposition movement. However this conference was not able to do so mainly because of the role of left sectarianism. One small sect which while calling itself communist sought as a priority to use this conference to get its people into positions in the union movement rather than to work in a non sectarian manner to build a fighting united front, a fighting coalition, against concessions. Another left sect intervened in the p9 struggle and the effort to build "the national rank and file against concessions", but did so also in a sectarian manner and so damaged this effort. For example it would not share its large contact list with the p9 strikers but it wanted the contact list of the tens of thousands of people who were in contact with and supported the p9 strike. Another sect also calling itself communist paid lip service to supporting the strike but behind the scenes complained that the p9 fighters were too militant and were splitting the union movement, by that they meant were coming into opposition to the union leadership.  

The founders of this Blog have an intimate experience with this type of left sectarian activity and how it can damage the efforts of the working class to build and fight. Richard Mellor the main person who started this Blog was for thirty years an active member of the union the American Federation of State and County and Municipal Employees, Local 444, and the a prominent activist in that union at that time. He was also a member of a socialist group, the group that now goes by the name of Socialist Alternative. 

He took the initiative through his local and started a rank and file opposition magazine in that union - known as AFSCME ACTIVIST. He would later be brought up on charges by the leadership of the union for using the name although the charges were dropped. AFSCME ACTIVIST was not a socialist magazine. Its platform was opposition to concessions, no support for the team concept, no support for the Democratic Party and for the building of a Labor Party. That is, it was a united front type magazine and opposition grouping based on and fighting for these agreed demands. 

Richard Mellor's local, Afscme 444, supported this magazine and gave resources to this initiative to build an opposition in the union. With help from activists in Wisconsin, the AFSCME ACTIVIST went on to be subscribed to by locals in ten states (usually fifty copies were distributed to each of these locals for each of their meetings). It developed a base from Arizona to Wisconsin, to New York to Illinois. It was also sold at meetings and union gatherings and conventions such as the California State Labor Federation and District Councils. Labor Notes would not support this magazine and developing opposition presumably because it too clearly explained its different position to the union leadership and its opposition to its policies. However that is not what brought about the end of AFSCME ACTIVIST. 

At that time in the group that was to go on to become Socialist Alternative today, a debate was taking place. Both Richard Mellor and Sean O’Torain and others in that group believed that the majority of the leadership of that group were not putting forward an alternative to the then union leadership of the Labor Party Advocates, a group which worked for a Labor Party and which had been started after a successful meeting was held by Richard Mellor’s local, Afscme Local 444 with Tony Mazzocchi, the leader of the Oil and Chemical Workers Union speaking.

The majority of this group (Now Socialist Alternative) then moved to expel Richard Mellor and the others. This is par for the course with the left groups which adhere to the false undemocratic method of organizing which is known as Democratic Centralism. To destroy the different point of view in their organization the majority of Socialist Alternative expelled those who held this different point of view. But not content with that, and much more damaging to the working class, the leadership of what is now Socialist Alternative went on to destroy AFSCME ACTIVIST. They were not prepared to allow Richard Mellor to be a central figure in an opposition magazine in a major union. So they wrecked the developing opposition group AFSCME ACTIVIST. This is the method of all left sectarian groups, all so-called democratic centralist groups, they put their own immediate and petty interests above the interests of the working class movement.  

In order to formerly establish AFSCME ACTIVIST Richard Mellor proposed to a meeting of AFSCME ACTIVIST supporters at a conference of AFSCME in Chicago an editorial board be elected to guide the work and build the alternative in AFSCME. This board was to be comprised of people who agreed with the magazines demands, opposition to concessions, against the so-called Team Concept, no support for the Democratic Party instead for the building of a Labor Party. The majority of the Afscme Activist supporters at that meeting were all rank and file union members and mostly women,

The majority of the left group that is now Socialist Alternative opposed the election of this editorial board. They demanded that their organization have control over this rank and file magazine and demanded the addresses and information of the subscribers.  Richard Mellor correctly opposed this sectarian approach as a decision of this nature was not his to make but the supporters of Afscme Activist. As as a result what is today Socialist Alternative expelled Mellor, withdrew its support from AFSCME ACTIVIST, and sabotaged it. Further reading on the Afscme Activist here.

So those who support this Blog understand through personal experience the danger that left sectarian groups pose to the building of a fighting opposition in the unions and the working class, understand how groups that claim to be Democratic Centralist put their own interests in front of the interests of the working class and do damage. 

As a result we recognize how in the case of DSA we are correct to stand against organizations which base themselves on such methods as so-called democratic centralism being part of our organization. However while defending ourselves against such organizations, DSA is now welcoming into our organization to run the policy of its union work, the group known as Labor Notes, which is an organization with clearly defined policies which are determined in closed internal meetings, and part of which is not to discuss the role of the trade union leadership. And along with this, it would appear the leadership of DSA is going along with this, they seek to prevent any open discussion in the union and working class movement of the trade union leadership's policy of "working with capitalism, not against it".          

The task of building a fighting democratic movement in the trade union rank and file and in the working class as a whole is an urgent necessity. It will not be easy. But it can succeed. To do so one essential element is a non sectarian open democratic discussion about the history of the trade union movement, of the trade union leadership, and the various policies and approaches that are carried out by the various forces within the trade union movement. This blog stands for such a discussion. Let the new movements that are just beginning to take shape, such as the teachers and educators discuss the full history of the movement, let all hear the various polices of the various opinions in the trade union movement those that brought success and those that bring failure. Let these new movements and the tens and tens of millions of workers who will organize into trade unions in the coming period make a democratic decision concerning what policies are necessary to defeat the employers, to defeat the capitalist offensive.

Specifically is the policy of the trade union leaders to “work with capitalism, not against it” correct. Or is it, as this Blog believes, incorrect. 

Greg Bartik

Les Evenchick

Richard Mellor

Sean O' Torain